Should people who donated to Prop 8 be publicly exposed and humiliated?

[ruggerson]

or is it harrassment and an attack on their right to free speech?

(I'm on the humiliation side of the fence).

[baldguy]

1. Are they ashamed of what they did?

If not, why keep it a secret?

[MineralMan]

2. Not the point.

The donation records are public documents. There it is. If you're not proud of your donation to a cause and worried about people finding out about it, you're in for a surprise.

Sorry, Charlie...

[Cid_B]

162. So are police officer home addresses in some states

Just being a matter of public record is immaterial.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. If they donated enough, their names are already a matter of public record

That is how public disclosure laws work. How would compiling these names into a list, which is also publicly available, constitute harassment or an attack on anyone's right to free speech?

[MNDemNY]

4. If they feel humiliated, that is their problem.

Public records are public records...too damn bad for them.

[gollygee]

5. Wah wah to them

It is an attack on free speech to tell people to not mention it. If someone gave money, they must really feel strongly, so let them defend themselves.

[kid a]

6. maybe invited to discussion and educated?

[mmonk]

7. Chalk me up for humiliation.

I see no reason to let them hide.

[GodlessBiker]

8. Yes, they should be. No more Mr. Nice Gay.

[readmoreoften]

9. Why is this somehow different than the Christian "boycotts" we face all the time?

Free speech doesn't mean pampered speakers who get to live in a bubble shielded from the effect of their speech. Free speech comes with free consequences.

[defendandprotect]

10. They should be "exposed" ...

Americans have a right to know that it's organized patriarchal religions funding

the campaigns against birth control and abortion --

against women's rights -- ERA passage --

and against homosexuals-- Prop8 --

Their war on Jews was called off due to exposure --

As well as "Christian" support for slavery/Segregation --

so exposure of prejudiced, intolerant teachings/policies is a positive --

[Deja Q]

20. If everyone knew what everyone else was doing, where would the privacy advocates be?

[mondo joe]

59. Some things are private. Some aren't. Funding in politics is not. NT

[defendandprotect]

26. Personal right to privacy isn't same as secrecy in government --

or in organizations --

[TexasObserver]

11. Yes! Absolutely. Their right is to free speech. Yours is, too!

You are free to scorn and excoriate them, and they should be chastised and condemned.

[gristy]

12. Sounds like a logistical nightmare and could be expensive

Not going to happen.

[cliffordu]

13. Yep- the courage of your convictions and all that...

[shadowknows69]

14. Private citizens should be allowed their privacy unless said donations are on the public record

But I think it could be argued that businesses and organizations, particularly ones enjoying tax immunity (non-profits, churches) are fair game and should be publicly shamed and boycotted.

[donco6]

17. Any donation SHOULD be public record.

It's illegal to contribute to a campaign committee anonymously.

[Deja Q]

22. Seconded.

Aren't most donations already public record; I recall a website during the campaign that showed who donated for whom and how much...

[shadowknows69]

24. Wasn't sure about the anonymity rules

[donco6]

15. They were on God's side, right?

Why would they be humiliated? :sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

16. I wanted to track down the current managers of the Knights of Columbus.

Because they are working in the shadows and where there is secrecy, there's usually something to hide. I just haven't had the focus.

But they're all businessmen except one chaplain.

[libnnc]

18. They spend a ton of energy shaming me, I'd like to return the flavor. n/t

[flstci]

19. Why should anyone be humiliated for an opinion?

Educated ..... debated ...... discussed with ..... why humiliated?

There are lots of votes I don't agree with but everyone is entitled to an opinion whether you agree with it or not.

[Deja Q]

21. Shhh, don't act civilized. That's being devolved.

[mondo joe]

31. Civilized people don't try to strip others of equal rights. If simply exposing these

people humiliates and shames them, then they are shamed by their own choosing.

[flstci]

39. There in lies the rub. Those who donated would be hard to humiliate

but you may be able to have an educational discussion with them. Which do you think you would get farther with?

[mondo joe]

47. Humiliation.

Hardcore bigots are not open to outreach.

Look at the history of civil rights struggles. After the reasonable people were allied, the hardcore oppressors had to be exposed and shamed.

[flstci]

51. So, you believe if they are not open to outreach you will be able to humiliate them?

Fascinating.

[mondo joe]

54. Absolutely. It has ever been the case. Look at the history of civil rights struggles.

Shaming the oppressors is a tried and true method.

[flstci]

60. I respectfully disagree. N/T

[mondo joe]

64. Then you're in denial about the history of civil rights struggles.

Oppressors have always had to be shamed into the darkness.

But this is not a real matter for you anyway - just a bit of philosophical masturbation. So I wouldn't expect you to be committed to real work.

[flstci]

67. As I said earlier, where are you going to start? I think at the top, lets humiliate the President

Elect and work our way down.

[mondo joe]

71. If equal civil rights were a real issue for you, you might be discussing real strategy

instead of being snarky and disingenuous.

[flstci]

76. What is snarky and disengenuous? I made a point you don't like?

[mondo joe]

79. You were, and are, disingenuous You'd have to care about an issue to discuss

it sincerely.

[flstci]

81. How am I not being sincere? Because I expressed an opinion?

[mondo joe]

84. A snarky and disingenuous opinion. That said, if you want to humiliate

Obama and Biden, be my guest.

That's not my strategy. They opposed Prop 8.

[flstci]

87. Both said, publicly, they opposed same sex marriages. That is not snark, that is fact.

[mondo joe]

90. Did you read the OP? It's about humiliating (or not) those who suported Prop 8.

If Obama and Biden supported Prop 8 we'd be having a different discussion.

[flstci]

93. I guess I didn't understand what prop 8 was about. I thought it was about same sex marriage.

[mondo joe]

94. Obama and Biden both stated they OPPOSED Prop 8.

Are you not getting that?

[flstci]

97. And they both said they opposed same sex marriages. Are you not getting that?

Have I misunderstood what prop 8 was about? Did I not hear them say that? Both said it was a state issue.

[mondo joe]

103. No, I got that - but that's not the question. The question in this thead is about Prop8.

If they are against Prop 8 they are nominally reasonable people who can be dealt with.

If they are for Prop 8 they should be exposed as the bigots they are.

Too complex for you to understand?

[flstci]

105. Evidently. If they are against same sex marriage but for same sex marriage then

yes, I'm confused.

[mondo joe]

109. Since you are opposed to same sex marriage, I don't expect you to understand much.

Thanks!

[flstci]

113. You're most welcome.

[gollygee]

107. It is possible to think

"I don't like same-sex marriage. But I don't think civil rights should be up to a vote, therefore I am opposed to Proposal 8."

People who don't like something might be ignorant about that thing but if they understand that someone else's rights shouldn't be determined by what makes them feel good, then they are not in the same boat as people who not only think they have a right to take away someone else's rights, but gave money in an attempt to keep people from having civil rights.

[flstci]

111. Both Obama and Biden said they believed this was a states rights issue.

I will have to take them at their word.

[gollygee]

112. And they said they would have voted against it

They personally opposed Proposal 8. So take them at their word.

[flstci]

115. So, which candidate did I vote for?! The ones opposed to same sex marriage or the ones

who support it?!

I'm so confused.

[mondo joe]

117. Since I'm guessing you voted for McCain, you probably don't have to worry about it.

[flstci]

120. You would be wrong. Sorry, try again.

Just because I don't support same sex marriage I'm a repub huh? Hmmmm I'll bet there are some others on here who must be repubs. They must be exposed.

:sarcasm:

A good Obama voter would never vote against same sex marriage.

Single issue voter much?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

163. OMFG!!

You started out talking about education and outreach and now you're admitting you're anti-marriage equality.

[mondo joe]

116. And they said in their opinion it shouldn't be in the state Constitution. NT

[AntiFascist]

169. I think there is a subtle point you are both missing...

people may have a personal opinion about gay marriage based on their religious convictions, but they might also understand that civil rights trumps their own private religious feelings. I believe that this is where Obama and Biden are both coming from, and this is also how we can change minds. We should tolerate people's personal bigoted beliefs, as long as they realize that the Constitution protects civil rights and not religious mores which change with time.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

56. Yes, they are. Same as if they are opposed to equal civil rights for anyone.

If they are convinced of their rightness they have no reason to feel humiliated for their stance.

[flstci]

57. So, when will we start humiliating the President Elect?

I guess he is not allowed an opinion either?

How 'bout Joe Biden? Should we start with the humiliation there and work our way up?

Whatchya think?

[mondo joe]

62. Who said anyone isn't allowed an opinion? People are entitled to wrong and even

disgusting opinions.

Obama and Biden aren't on the radar because they're the least offensive of a bad lot.

[flstci]

66. You did. You said we should humiliate anyone with an opinion opposite

of yours. I simply asked a question. If you don't have an answer for it, fine.

[Tallison]

They should be exposed. Whether they're humiliated by it

is kind of up to them. Don't think anyone can humiliate you without your consent, a la Eleanor Roosevelt.

ETA: And he didn't say we should humiliate anyone with an opinion opposite of ours. You're generalizing as a debate tactic.

[flstci]

73. That is what I said before. I don't think you can humiliate someone who truly believes

what they have voted for and those who actually donate to the cause they believe in are going to be harder yet.

[closeupready]

123. If they believe it, then no worries - they can't be humiliated, they will just roll with it, right?

??

[flstci]

126. That would be the general idea. If you donate to something you believe in

then some asshole comes along and tries to 'humiliate' you, how are you going to feel? Justified? Proud? Humiliated? Ashamed?

Really think about what you are saying. You believed in your cause enough to give your hard earned money to support it yet someone is going to humiliate you? I think not.

I'm just trying to inject a little thought into the discussion. Think about it. Remove the emotion and think about what you are saying.

[mondo joe]

129. Someone who supports Prop 8 is trying to give advice on how to defeat Prop 8?

And we're supposed to take it seriously?

[flstci]

132. Take it anyway you like. I'm simply giving an opinion. I'll bet there are more here who agree with

me on how to win friends and influence people. Education works better than humiliation.

[mondo joe]

134. So you're saying if I'd been sweet with you you'd change your mind and vote no on Prop8?

[flstci]

138. No, I'm saying I'm an open minded thinker. If you can show me the error of my ways

I have no problem admitting my error and moving on. If my arm gets twisted you damn sure won't get what you want. I'm funny that way but, as I said in a post down thread, I'm sure I'm the only American who feels this way so just keep up with your tactics, they seem to be working.

[mondo joe]

143. The fact that a Prop 8 proponent thinks I'm doing something wrong is confirmation that I'm right.

You remind me of a KKK member telling Rosa Parks and MLK they ought to stop agitating for civil rights in order to win civil rights.

[flstci]

145. Ok, good luck with that. I truly wish you well.

[mondo joe]

147. Yeah, I'll bet you do.

:eyes:

[Tallison]

69. Dupe.

[mondo joe]

72. People can have an opinion, and others can respond. That's free speech.

That doesn't disallow anyone from having an opinion.

[flstci]

80. There is a difference between 'response' and 'humiliation', don't you think?

I'm doing nothing more than expressing an opinion yet you choose to call me snarky and disingenuous. That doesn't seem to be working.

[mondo joe]

82. Not really. No one can make someone feel humiliated except the person who feels it.

If someone feels humiliated by their actions being exposed, it's their choice.

[flstci]

85. That's what I've been saying. Those who have taken the step to donate

will not be humiliated by anything you do. You will push them away and lose them for either a long time or forever. It is your choice.

[mondo joe]

88. If they're not humiliated, why do they not want to be exposed?

Why do you think the KKK wears masks?

Those who supported Prop 8 are already lost to us forever. Again, look to the history of civil rights. There is always a tipping point at which the reasonable people have agreed, and the oppressors have to be beaten down.

[flstci]

95. Who would be oppressing whom? See the pendulum swings.

What are you willing to do to advance your cause?

[mondo joe]

99. Like oppressing the KKK by exposing them? What a twisted sense of civil rights you have.

Really.

[flstci]

101. Educate me. Please.

[mondo joe]

104. People who oppose equal civil rights are oppressive. I support equal civil rights even

those who support Prop 8.

Exposing them for what they are is not a violation of their rights.

[flstci]

108. I'm not from CA but I would have voted to support prop 8. How would you expose me?

Wouldn't you rather have a civil discourse with me to try to win me to your side?

[mondo joe]

114. You're like a Republican telling a Democrat what the Democrat's strategy should be.

Like, or are.

[flstci]

118. Huh?

[mondo joe]

119. Since you oppose my civil rights, why would I take your word on what my strategy should be?

[flstci]

122. Oh, thanks for the clairification. No need to take my advice, it is worth what you paid for it.

[kevinbgoode]

125. Why would I need your approval to marry?

n/t

[flstci]

128. You don't. Evidently you need my vote. Humiliation wins multitudes to the vote machine.

[mondo joe]

131. You've already stated you'd vote against equal civil rights. Are we supposed to believe

you are sharing a winning strategy with you to turn your vote around?

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

139. Again: If I'd been all sweet with you would that have changed your vote?

[flstci]

144. See my response up thread.

[mondo joe]

149. So you're refusing to admit that no matter how nice I am with you you'd stll vote against my rights.

Thanks!

[kevinbgoode]

159. Actually I believe that is what the court case is all about.

You know...how heterosupremacists don't need anyone's vote to secure fundamental rights, but gays do.

After all, the only people who ever voted for a straight white man's right to marry were...straight white men. No one else ever had any vote or representation in the government when that was established.

So to explain that I need the votes from the same group which excluded the rest of us from voting on their rights is an interesting idea. Of course, I guess we could vote those rights away for that group as well.

As for needing your vote, I don't think that's what civil marriage is all about. Of course, if the purpose is to establish the right of anyone to vote on anyone else's marriage - or wedding rights - I'm all for it. The gays are quite perceptive when it comes to observing straights without the character to honor a commitment.

Now tell us again why anyone whose "faith" was so...so...deep...that they had to contribute money to help take the constitutional rights away from another group...would be humiliated to find that act made public?

[mondo joe]

127. By the way, you are in violation of DU rules for use.

"We expect all of our members to support equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. That includes the right to marry. – Skinner ADMIN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1324374&mesg_id=1324374

[flstci]

130. Oh, sorry. Thought I was expressing an opinion. Guess you will

get my opinion banned now. That's cool.

[mondo joe]

133. Expressing an opinion doesn't come with any guarantee against consequences. NT

[flstci]

142. I thought we were a community of 'thinkers' which comes with an opinion or two. Guess

I could be wrong. If I'm tombstoned we'll know. If I get tombstoned for my opinion it would be no loss to me.

[mondo joe]

146. Would you expect to opine that you oppose interracial marriage and that would be OK here?

[libnnc]

135. rules are rules. It ain't your board. Buh-bye now.

[flstci]

140. Ok, well it's been fun. Hope y'all enjoy group think.

[libnnc]

148. I oppose YOUR marriage, how do you like that?

YOU have NO right to be MARRIED. Your "spouse" or whatever you people call it--should have NO access to your health insurance, should have no survivor's benefits should you croak (and vice-versa) and you BOTH should have no hospital visitation rights EVER. Can I vote to take away YOUR marriage? 'Cause I think it's UNHOLY AND EVIL.


How's that feel?

[mondo joe]

151. Group think, like believing in civil rights for everyone. Okay. NT

[libnnc]

153. Looks like fucktard go bye-bye

I hate these people.

[mondo joe]

164. So I go to a marriage rights march, and when I come back the homophobe is gone.

Nice!

[gollygee]

171. Good work!

:D

[flstci]

Evidently you were correct. N/T

[mondo joe]

27. If they are humiliated by their own actions it's their decision. NT

[defendandprotect]

29. Religion isn't "opinion" ..it's universal teaching/policy --

[flstci]

34. Are you so certain everyone who voted for prop 8

was religious?

[defendandprotect]

40. We are certain it had backing by large organized patriarchal religion ....

Homophobia is patriarchal belief ... commonly taught thru their religions ...

[flstci]

42. And that is everyone. Ahhhh I see your point

but if you wear a hat no one else will notice.

[defendandprotect]

48. NO -- Mormons pushed an anti-homosexual Prop religious voters were against --!!!

[flstci]

53. The evidence would suggest otherwise. N/T

[mondo joe]

150. Dude, you think its okay to STRIP PEOPLE of the their CIVIL RIGHTS, but it's not okay to

humiliate people FOR stripping others of their rights.

What a fucktard.

[defendandprotect]

154. The evidence is that this Prop was constructed to appeal to religious fanatics --

[mrreowwr_kittty]

98. CNN exit polls showed 91% of voters who "practiced no religion" voted no

I suspect the actual percentage is even higher than that, due to statistical noise, people not understanding the question, etc.

[flstci]

102. And what part of 100% is 91%?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

110. I dunno, the fucking OVERWHELMING MAJORITY, maybe?

Gee, just think if the rest of the state had voted like the nonreligious ones!

[flstci]

124. If those numbers are in fact correct, you still had 9% who did not vote

they way you wanted them to. Seems like a large number to me. Especially when you consider only 80% identify themselves as Christian. There is an 11% problem.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

152. Please do yourself a favor and take a basic statistics class.

You are really embarassing yourself right now.

[gollygee]

157. So 9% had some other reason for being bigots

Why does that matter?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

30. The OP isn't about voters, it's about donors.

Big difference. People who feel strongly enough about their political views to put money behind and go on public record as doing so have no business complaining when they are publicly scorned for it. Votes are private, donations are not.

[flstci]

35. They are still donating to support their opinion, are they not? N/T

[mrreowwr_kittty]

63. And people are allowed to express theirs right back, are they not?

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from criticism.

[flstci]

70. Absolutely. I just dont think you should castigate someone for an opinion. I think

you should try to educate.

[mondo joe]

77. If that's what you think people *should* do, go ahead and do it.

Get a boundary.

[flstci]

83. I've obviously chosen my boundary.

[mondo joe]

86. Yes. Unfortunately, you have chosen a boundary that givs you an imagined authority

into others choices. :-)

[flstci]

91. Guess again. I have no authority. I've simply stated you will get farther

with education than you will with a tactic of humiliation. If you choose to disagree with that sentiment you are most welcome to do so.

[mondo joe]

96. Your uninformed opinion has been considered. When you're ready to make a real

commitment and do the real work, let us know.

[flstci]

100. I don't agree with same sex marriage. Are you sure you would want me to do 'the real work'?

[mondo joe]

106. As I said up above, you were being disingenuous. When someone opposed to equality

tells me I'm doing the wrong thing I know I'm on the right track.

[kevinbgoode]

136. Their opinion on someone else's marriage?

Amazing. I guess we can all petition now to stop anyone's wedding, and then hide behind whatever message we've chosen to manufacture from some imaginary voice in the sky.

[krispos42]

43. The public can be made aware of the opinion somebody has

And the public can form their own opinion what to do with that information, including voting with their wallets.

The "somebody" can then decided to change their opinion, maintain their opinion, or keep their opinion to themselves.

[mondo joe]

50. Precisely! If exposing what someone does makes that person feel shamed, it's their

own fault for doing things they are ashamed of.

[donco6]

166. What's humiliating about it?

Were they not contributing to "save marriage"? If that's what they believed, what's humiliating about it? Why would they care?

[dkofos]

23. Money is not free speech. They should be exposed for the bigots they are.

[krispos42]

37. Money IS free speech.

The Supreme Court said so about a hundred years ago. That's the problem with money in politics; rich people can buy more free speech than poor people.



Protesting the money given, however, is also free speech!

[dkofos]

49. They were wrong then and you are wrong now.

[mondo joe]

52. Why do you think free speech and truth are wrong?

[dkofos]

74. TSTGTMOMP

[krispos42]

121. And how am I wrong? n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

25. Political contributions are a matter of public record

Don't want to be exposed, then don't make them.

[mondo joe]

28. They absolutely should be. This is a cornerstone of civil rights struggles across the world.

They must be shamed.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

32. yes. Also, repub voters should be charged triple taxes.

I wanted to say that should be retroactive too, but....on the other hand, I wouldn't want to punish r's who voted for Obama.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[krispos42]

36. Yes.

As long as it's being done by private individuals.


I do not think that employers, for example, should be able to retaliate against the portions of it's workforce that gave money.



If you want to make known to a person or a business that you disagree with there political activities, then that is your right to do so.

You can do so if you find out for local Subway is owned by a McCain campaign-donor, for example, although I don't think most people would bother with that level of protest.

However, Prop 8 is different.



I suppose at some point it might become slander and libel, but that's for a jury to decide.

[Spectral Music]

38. The Prop 8 yes people were going to do the same to companies who were against the prop

and donated money. They threatened companies who donated to the No on Prop 8 with exposure and boycotts unless they also donated money for Yes on Prop 8 too.

[Mari333]

41. You can look up all Prop 8 contributors on here

http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/

I found one in Holland MI, Elsa Prince, her foundation contributed 200,000.00 sheesh.

[krispos42]

46. Thank you...

...I was just going to post an OP asking where I could find this information! :rofl:

[petronius]

44. Political donations are considered a form of speech, right?

So if someone engages in public speech there is no expectation that that speech will be kept secret. Publishing lists of donors is perfectly fine.

That said, I am far less comfortable with boycotts or other economic retaliations against people who engage in unpalatable speech. Firstly, because it's very difficult to truly target these activities, and innocent people (e.g. employees) often end up hurt the worst. Secondly, I've always felt that the answer to bad speech is good speech - boycotts are more like expressions of rage (which may feel good), but attempting to hurt, intimidate or frighten people into changing or silencing their views seems too thuggish for me. And, IMO, there isn't that much difference between trying to hurt someone in the pocketbook and just walking up and punching them in the nose.

So, if a corporation, as company policy, engaged in speech/donation (or other activities) that I found reprehensible, I would take my business elsewhere - but retaliating against businesses and people for views expressed by individuals as private citizens crosses my line...

[richabk]

45. Database of all Prop 8 donations

http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?Search+Again=

You can do a lookup by name or search by state, city, Zip, and which side they donated to.

[IndianaJones]

58. only if they can be positively identified as real bigots. nt.

[gollygee]

61. Hah. You won't catch me this time.

LOL

[mondo joe]

65. Oh snap. You used "the B-word".

;-)

[RC]

68. What makes you think they aren't proud of donating to stop Prop 8?

You need to remember they don't think, if that's the word, like normal people. Their world is black & white. Very little grey. Forget any color. (Is that a pun?)

[IndianaJones]

75. same reason the KKK wears hoods. nt.

[yardwork]

167. lol

[McCamy Taylor]

78. No, you should target their sons for conversion to the "gay agenda".

Guys, if you scare them, they will just be even more knee jerk anti-gay.

[IndianaJones]

92. they aren't knee jerk anti-gay....they are deeply and thoughtfully hateful and bigoted. nt.

[Starry Messenger]

156. They are already "scared".

Actually scared would be an improvement. These are not people who are going to be won over with a friendly chat to work it all out. I think an economic boycott sends the right message myself.

[noamnety]

89. This isn't an attack on their free speech.

They are free to publicly fund bigoted legislation and speak in favor of it. We are free to examine public records and speak out against their public support of bigotry.

Free speech does NOT mean one group has the right to speak without criticism. It does NOT mean that they can speak as offensively as they like, and other citizens have a moral obligation to economically support their businesses. If they've interpreted it that way, they don't get the concept and they need to go back and relearn civics.

[bunkerbuster1]

141. Only if it serves some practical purpose.

I mean, if you're going to send a bunch of people to picket Jane the Baker's Assistant's apartment just to make her feel crappy, that'd be kind of lame.

If, on the other hand, it's Jane the Bakery Owner Who Owns a Shop in a Predominantly Gay Area, hell yeah.

[Fleshdancer]

155. donating to prop 8 is more than just an opinion

People who have done this are funding bigotry. I choose to use my freedom of speech to speak out against this.

[Starry Messenger]

158. I'm very glad the harsh light of media attention is coming to swing on these donations.

It's the secrecy that helps shelter the amount of power these donations really had. If they feel humiliated then they should be more thoughtful about who to donate to. Otherwise, suck it up.

[Karenina]

161. YES! Their mouths can elucidate why their money goes where!

:rofl:

[backscatter712]

160. Humiliate the fucks!!!

Political donations are public record. I say we use those public records.

[hulklogan]

165. Yes yes yes humiliate them, publicly shame them, and turn your back to them when you see them

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from social / economic consequences of that speech.

[AntiFascist]

168. I would personally draw the line at creating a hardcopy of a list...

and distributing the list. The only reason for this is because they may change their minds on the issue, and once they are "listed" as a target then it is difficult to remove them. One reason for them changing their mind on the issue might be that they weren't aware of the deeper, underlying civil rights principles. Simply changing the definition of marriage doesn't go into these issues and the Yes on 8 people were at fault for not spelling it out. If Yes on 8 donators would change their minds with the understanding that groups like the Anti-Defamation Leaque and NAACP are also on our side, then that would be a great thing.

On the other hand, their name is part of a publically accessible database (which I assume is allowed or required under law) so any "right to privacy" doesn't apply, and we aren't taking away their ability to express themselves.

I'm also on the side of humiliation, but we should definitely keep in mind that the primary goal is to CHANGE minds, not to create numerous enemies.

[ColbertWatcher]

170. Absolutely. "Actions," I'd like to introduce you to "Consequences." k+r, n/t